> But arcades!' Are renting someone else's hardware. Different thing. This did abuse not exist fifteen years ago. Yes it did, and even longer. Quite a few arcade games were made with intentional difficulty spikes to suck up as many quarters as possible, not to be a fair game.

Read what you quoted.

It wasn't even that hidden back then, games like candy crush admitted to journalists that they changed the difficulty based on spending habits. The fact they might have that formula fine tuned even more shouldn't be surprising.

Just think what we could accomplish if we focused efforts elsewhere...

We're saying the games we like couldn't exist without the business models you want to ban. How does something like Dragon Ball FighterZ continue to expand if you are forbidding them from selling anything that would make character expansions possible? If you want to say "nothing should cost money ever", then the natural outcome of that is that we just don't get new characters anymore. In effect, you *are* banning these games by making it impossible for them to exist like this.

I remember watching some animated YouTube video years ago about what if we did things so n a way that made sense, like having farms in locations where there was plenty of water and we didn't ship cheap stuff around the world but I have been unable to find that video

Stop lying about what I said. "Nothing inside a video game" does not mean "nothing ever." And you know goddamn well that fighting games had incremental re-releases, decades before this abuse was possible. Or, sell actual expansions. You want characters to cost twenty bucks each? Fine, sell that *like a game,* not like a fucking hat. If it's on your hard drive, in your game, you already fucking have it, and charging real money is a scam. Or, if you want continuing revenue for an online service - make it a service. Sell subscriptions. Oh sorry, do people not like that? Yeah no shit, because it's up-front about how much it costs, rather than luring people in and gouging them for untold sums. Or, a game comes out, and plainly exists, and doesn't become the version that's squeezed a billion dollars out of ten percent of players over ten years. Oh well! TF2 without this bullshit would still be TF2. People would still be playing 2fort, forever, the same way they're still doing Ryu vs Ken on Street Fighter 2 Turbo. I do not respect the dishonest conflation of 'FighterZ doesn't get to expand forever' with 'FighterZ would be *banned.*'

>And you know goddamn well that fighting games had incremental re-releases, decades before this abuse was possible. Of course I know, I know how much it fucking sucked! No one wants to go back to that! You'd rather spend $60 on Street Fighter II: The World Warrior, then spend $60 on Street Fighter II': Champion Edition, then spend $60 on Street Fighter II Turbo: Hyper Fighting, then spend $60 on Super Street Fighter II: The New Challengers, then spend $60 on Super Street Fighter II Turbo? That's better to you than being able to get the patches for free, with the option of buying characters at a reasonable price, all while still retaining compatibility with opponents on the latest version even if you don't spend a dime? How is that better? How? >Or, if you want continuing revenue for an online service - make it a service. Sell subscriptions. Oh sorry, do people not like that? No, no I don't like that! I would much rather buy a character once than have to subscribe to them forever! If I buy a character I get to keep them, if I subscribe I don't. And I'm not getting gouged, I know what the price tag is. If anything, a subscription is gouging because I have to keep paying again and again in order to keep what I should've only had to pay for once. I'm actually baffled that you're seriously trying to suggest subscriptions as a better alternative. Like... seriously? Really? >I do not respect the dishonest conflation of 'FighterZ doesn't get to expand forever' with 'FighterZ would be banned.' *FighterZ as we know it* would not exist in your world. In your world, it'd just be the 1.0 base game and that'd be it, but I know you know we're talking about what FighterZ was able to become over the course of its lifespan thanks to DLC. You're taking this needlessly aggressive tone accusing us of misconstruing you, but I know you know damn well what we're saying here while you keep misconstruing us. Don't accuse me of being dishonest when you're playing dumb like this.

Nothing *inside* a video game. That part is not optional. I've dealt with too many cranks who see me arguing - JUST SELL GAMES - and then go 'you want it for *free!*' No, folks, *you* want it for free. You want to play endlessly-updated games, 'subsidized by teenage hormones.' You imagine that *you* would never be taken for ungodly sums of money. Even if you're right, you're counting on other people being taken for all the money you're not paying, and more. That's what it means, when this abuse makes more money. Predatory abuse is inseparable from this business model. Maximum revenue comes from addiction and frustration. You can be made to want whatever bullshit they're allowed to push. *That's how games work.* They mechanically convince you to value arbitrary nonsense. edit: oh shit, I thought I hit submit on this five hours ago.

Subscriptions are honest. Like actual sales - where you get a thing you didn't have, in exchange for money. Paying money, to be allowed to use part of the game you already have, is not a sale. SF6 fucking *launched* with $120 in DLC. Like yeah, you bought the game, at full price... but fuck you, pay us again. Breaking up the fuckening into individual characters, trickled out over years, is psychological manipulation to disguise that abuse. > And I’m not getting gouged, I know what the price tag is. ... the fact you can pay hundreds of dollars and still not have all of a 1v1 fighting game is not made problematic through *mystery.* No shit you can see the price tag. That price is obscene. Past abuses being worse is no kind of excuse. I swear to god, Capcom *could* charge the price of a whole game for each new character bundle, and there'd still be people up my ass about how it must be fine because it was the same in the 90s. You know how I know? *Because they do.* Annual character passes are $30! Does that get you everything that comes out, that year? Does it, fuck. > I know you know we’re talking about what FighterZ was able to become Of course you do, because it's what that paragraph was about. How am I the one "playing dumb?" You're still insisting there's no way a game could be updated - aside from the other two ways you don't like! - so that's the same as the game being *banned.* Because saying it's *banned* sounds really bad, and serious, and is totally the same thing as saying Capcom doesn't need real negotiable currency in order to change the *color* of a character's *pants.* But hey, this is only the shallow end of a business model that's turning the games industry into a frustration-based casino. Why worry?

I'm already sold, you don't have to keep trying to sell me on it.

Nah, some thoughts. But not everything is black and white. And in the spectrum of grey there are plenty of in-game sales that are better than the alternative. Again, I would much rather buy the characters one by one and have the all-in-one box come out later than have to wait for the big box and pay full price for it. I am genuinely baffled about why you think that's worse than "pay me for the game every month or I take it away". I am even more baffled by how you think that distinction is somehow logical beyond personal preference. Your being adamant about this doesn't make it make sense.

"SEO experts" skew results for pay. They are doing mobile games for now, because they are particularly egregious "dark pattern" games.

Charging for anything inside a game is like applying a dollar value to soccer goals. It's a category error, exploited for profit. I am fundamentally opposed to this system of manipulating people into wanting arbitrary nonsense and then charging actual money for it. Your glib endorsement of that manipulation does not make it rational. And this is the shallow end. Characters, you can almost sorta kinda argue, as sloppy expansions. Skins? Fuck off. A bottomless pit of manufactured discontent. Plainly sufficient to wring billions out of people for a game that's "free." Or for a game that's forty fucking dollars and will gladly take another hundred dollars every single year. And characters in a 1v1 fighter are drastically different from MOBA bullshit, where having the wrong options can ruin an hour of four other people's lives. People are rightly incensed by efforts to charge $80 to own one video game. This is an entire market of games where you can pay $1000 and *still not have the whole thing.* Something's fucky.

I do want updated games, yes. My favorite games wouldn't be my favorite games if 1.0 was all we ever got. Some games have predatory models, and I do oppose that. But only when it actually is predatory. I take issue with how you're trying to say nothing should ever be sold, even when what's being sold is perfectly fair.

DLC is honest. I get a thing in exchange for money. I know what the price tag is, and I'm happy to pay what I think is a fair price. And I only pay once to keep the thing I paid for, unlike a subscription. Let me just cut straight past all your deflecting. Do you think that the final version of DBFZ, with all of its DLC, sold at its price, should be able to exist in this form?

>This is an entire market of games where you can pay $1000 and still not have the whole thing. Those aren't the games we're talking about. We're talking about DBFZ, an example of fixed DLC being sold at a reasonable price, which you want to dishonestly conflate with more predatory models in order to say that nothing should be sold ever.

They are so much worse. I worked with a guy who was pretty damn cheap. I would sometimes pay for his coffe or lunch sometimes, but he would never even drop a cent for me. I didn't really care much, cheap guy, maybe poor, i had no idea. I talked to another guy about video games, and the cheapskate chimed in, saying: i would never play video games, it's a waste if time and money. I didn't think much of it, it made so much sense. Another time the same co worker said something like: "the most he ever spend on a game was 60 dollars for a counterstrike skin". Cheapskate chimed in again, (he was also a bit of a one upper) hah, that's nothing, i spend 900 bucks on clash of clans last month. We both were absolutely flabbergasted, and he started to panic a bit abd said: "you think that's crazy? My girlfriend spends way more on candy crush a month." It's been a while, but i think we calculated that the spend a combined 2000 to 3000 bucks on mobile games a month, for years.

Skins are fine. They are entirely optional. Something existing doesn't mean you must own it. That's the part where we're not going to agree. Well, the maximalist holier-than-thou stance in general. But otherwise, you see things existing as an affront to you personally. This skin was made by someone and put in the game, and so I'm entitled to it, so it either shouldn't exist or it should be mine. That just doesn't track. I don't feel any more entitled to some random bikini costume than I do to some random statue bundled with a collector's edition. It's faff some people may want, but I'm not being attacked because somebody is buying and selling collector's edition of Cyberpunk for 200 bucks, just like way I'm not attacked by someone buying some in-game costume. Also, you *do* know pro football players get bonuses per goal, right? That comparison means different things depending on whether you know that and both are confusing.

> Mobile games to me are basically just one giant scam that forces you to pay or have a horrible time in comparison. There are so many ports of PC games that are far better than the "exclusively mobile" category of games.